"Atheist Life Vs. Religious Life" [video]

I like that. I could default to my ICP quote, but it garners the whoosh.jpg here.

I'll look him up.

Are you saying that you must have a religious belief to feel empathy for one another?(this is in regards to your helping people because your heart bleeds, but questioning the motives of those who don't believe in god and assuming they can't have bleeding hearts as well with that thought)
I might not always help other people for solely the sake of empathy, sure sometimes my decisions may be self-serving, but I was raised to treat others how I would want to be treated, which is a tenet of empathetic reasoning and isn't primarily a religious concept.
Do you feel good about yourself/ or in general when you help people?
I almost want to make this last question a rhetorical one since it's so obvious, but for the sake of the conversation I'd rather let you answer first.
short form response:
you can't help others without helping yourself.
and when you help others you are helping yourself.
so rather than making it all about YOU helping THEM
why don't you make it about a mutual relationship.
Because all of these things are give and take.
And even if you don't get physical retribution, a psychological one can work just as well for some people.
Past that I think you're being selfish.
If you use your same thoughts and ideas that we are all created by God in his image, why do you expect people to not help others by nature if God is one that would be prone to do that?
Do you question God's motives?

I just am offended that if I ever want to donate anything being an atheist I'm going to be judged as trying to get something out of it rather than helping just to help.
It's rather insulting.

Yup, everyone else is a heartless philistine that cannot feel anything. :P

@Elanabelle: That video is just as ridiculous a claim lol

I agree with what you've said(bolded). I just think it is nearly impossible to overcome the human trait of wanting something in return when investing (time/money/talents/etc), with or without God. The fact that I believe someone died for me with no intention of receiving anything in return, makes it all the easier for me to do so.

As for your question, it's loaded so let me break it up. Yes, I feel good when I help others, no I don't necessarily feel good about myself. Often times I'm kicking myself because I either recognize times in which I could have helped and missed the opportunity, or that I hesitated to actually do the deed I am doing at that moment to help. I still feel good for the person(s) receiving the help, even if they are nameless to me or I don't know where my help is going.

There's always motives behind charity. Even if it's only self gratification.

If you aren't consciously aware, then it isn't a motive. That's the point. Nature and motive are not synonymous with one another.

I see your point. I can't explain it in a way where it doesn't come across as you see it. I apologize for that, as it is not my intent. I can't explain this without being offensive in that nature. I do not question God's motives, and I believe it is in our nature to be as Him, it is also in our nature to want to be Him, therein we get a completely different set of motivations for our actions.

Yes, our nature is to help. Because of our desire to be the end-all be-all of design, it is not in our motivation.

I just love reading these conversations.

They will never compare to the days of old where by page 5 it was a bunch of 'NO U' and 'YOU'RE A DUMB !#$@%@#$ IDIOT AM I RITE GUYZ?'

I miss Starr....

My motivation to help others around me is so that they can be happy and then in turn I can be happy and we can strive to exist in harmony.
:/
Is that a bad motivation?
Do you feel it should be a questionable motivation?
Let's say a close friend is hard up on cash and has trouble with getting ends to meet and I take him out to lunch every so often and pay for his meal and have a great conversation while eating.
Am I doing this because I want something out of him or am I doing it because I genuinely care for the persons well being?
I just don't really understand why at the point of hearing "atheist" the understanding of them being charitable becomes solely for selfish gain.
I don't think I've ever donated to a charity with my religious beliefs in mind.
I help because it feels good to help in one hand and that I have been helped the same way in the past when I've been on hard times :/

Never said that, and I would say that is great motivation. There is still a gain to be had by you (being happy). I never said that was bad, just that it existed. It's not questionable at all. My rub was really with the people you quoted as far as atheist/agnostic charity. Those people stood to gain A LOT from their contributions. It's quite different for most average individuals. As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say your motivation to give is much more sincere when compared to the people you listed.

Science just found a way to get rid of bad blood, and even cancer or HIV. Maybe we can eradicate evil in the world now ; )

You did the good deed because you cared to put someone above yourself. Volunteering should be to put others before yourself and have no focus on yourself. Charity shouldn't be done chiefly for a good feeling. The good feeling comes because of the action, it should not be the reason for doing Charity.

Doing Charity for an alterior motive = Selfish
Doing Charity because you desire to help other above yourself = not Selfish by definition

I think the whole argument that I was replying to was bogus in the first place for that and if they had "ulterior motives" it had nothing to do with their religious associations.
Past that.
I know people who go on mission trips just to party and get drunk rather than to help people.
I'd say people with questionable motives exist on both sides of the spectrum and the religious aspects aren't really relevant when it comes to questioning motives.

Do you believe being selfless and being religious are exclusive concepts?

Seen it myself as well, and agree wholeheartedly. We are pretty much on the same page here, aside from a few small points. May as well move onto another portion of this discussion. I respect your view in this area.

They should be synonymous with one another. Sadly they aren't.

I do everything in hopes of getting a cookie for it.

So would we agree on the concept that Goodness is not determined by what man believes but more on the terms of what actions man takes?
No negative assumptions are coming with this in regards to your view-point, just curious, though I suspect what the answer is going to be.

Yaaaaawwn. You guys were busy while I was sleeping.

Let me recap what I've read over the last few pages:

1. We've had the standard theist response that "atheism is a belief that god isn't real" and the extremely incorrect statement that the burden of proof then lies on atheists, as THEY'RE the ones making the claim..

This is obviously not true, as atheism is simply the rejection of theistic concepts. It is the theistic concepts that require evidence to be considered as plausible. Nice try though, but this is the lowest form of theistic argument, it makes creationist look intelligent.

2. Deamun stated that "science is a rule" and thus is subject to human error and anamolies and thus we shouldn't subscribe to it for truth.

No doubt, that the product of our methodology yields errors on occasion. That's the best part about science, it's self correcting. If a theory is proved to be wrong eventually, we throw it out. Every single concept of god has been debunked, and theists still don't throw that theory out.

More importantly: Science isn't some grand philosophy, it's just a method for determining what is factual and/or plausible. The products of that method may end up being incorrect, but the method itself is not faulty. It is simply putting a standard to what you hold to be true. Theists don't have these standards.

3. Flion has a 3 word vocabulary.

4. There developed a list of atheist/theist great minds and charities.

This is largely irrelevant as it's apparent that good and bad motivations can arrise from theism and atheism. The counterpoints here are that: Theism has dominated society for most of our history, so most scholars would have been labeled a theist throughout history. Furthermore, one can never be certain the motivations of that individual. Perhaps there really were people that wouldn't have contributed to our society as much had they not been theists. However, I'd say that without theism, there most likely would have been significantly more contributing minds.

5. Daemun is possibly a birther.. Dear god I hope not. A creationist birther.. The lowest form of human being.

Correlation is not causation, eh? Goodness would stem from ones beliefs, but that has little to do with religion (or the absence of) I would say. It's more of a self evaluation, and one's outlook on life. Again, not related to religion.

So Goodness would stem from both belief, and action upon said beliefs.

This is a succinct way to illustrate my position as an atheist: